a fat panda

California Legislators Got Drunk on Stock Market Gains

bugger the paste function...

Good Article. Can you clarify the following :

"The biggest problem is that starting in 1999, California's legislators assumed revenue/tax numbers based on stock market gains/sales and spent accordingly. From 1998 to 2000, spending jumped dramatically, but from 1999 to 2008, expenditures declined only once--when the tech bubble popped, in 2003/2004. Basically, it seems our legislators banked on an ever-increasing stock market to finance spending. "

I thought the tech bubble popped in 2000 and continued through 2002. I would have expected you to talk more about the real estate taxes generated. While I agree with you on this subject, I am curious about the details.

Here is why. I have had many discussions with people about why the term "balanced budget" is meaningless and you probably know where I can find the data. I am interested in a break-out of personal income tax by source, specifically capital gains.

California Legislators Got Drunk on Stock Market Gains

Good article.

"PLJC/Ndq100
1706.44
1723

$10.097
10.05
99.53%
1.014108865
76.51%
3
121.6666667
10/29/2009


12.94
20
10352.26
-8629.26


39.52
106.94


Good Article. Can you clarify the following :

"The biggest problem is that starting in 1999, California's legislators assumed revenue/tax numbers based on stock market gains/sales and spent accordingly. From 1998 to 2000, spending jumped dramatically, but from 1999 to 2008, expenditures declined only once--when the tech bubble popped, in 2003/2004. Basically, it seems our legislators banked on an ever-increasing stock market to finance spending. "

I thought the tech bubble popped in 2000 and continued through 2002. I would have expected you to talk more about the real estate taxes generated. While I agree with you on this subject, I am curious about the details.

Here is why. I have had many discussions with people about why the term "balanced budget" is meaningless and you probably know where I can find the data. I am interested in a break-out of personal income tax by source, specifically capital gains.

Time for California Muni Bond Investors to Take a Stand

You aren't investing in California bonds. You are betting that the government will help them out in some way. This is the same as people who 'invested' in banks last December or 'invested' in autos a month ago. I can't tell you how or whether the Federal government intervenes. I can tell you that if it does these bonds are a better investment than what underlies the intervention - US Treasuries.




On Jul 01 10:04 AM ValueBarbarossa wrote:

> Of course it's very unlikely that California will go bankrupt. Remember...State's
> CAN'T seek bankruptcy protection.
>
> However, they can DEFAULT.
>
> I can't imagine jumping into these OF ALL bonds. You're taking a
> lot of risk here, and not getting paid a lot for it. I'd rather buy
> a volatile dividend payer that pays 6% than hold California bonds
> that will only avoid huge losses if the economy miraculously turns
> around. I've been tempted to make a bearish bet on California muni's
> for some time, but perhaps you're right and I'll just watch as you
> ride this investment train to glorious 6-7% returns.